To Noah: the 'avidya' of the snake and the rope

Noah, ... It should read as below (I have numbered the sentences so that the order is clear)

"Plato, you still simply don't get it.

First, Muslims are indeed mandated by their religion to lie to infidels. Reference this:...."

1)I am not sure if the analogy exactly fits, but

2)"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

3)Do the meek inherit it? This 'mandate' was disproved abundantly during the occupation of the Americas and other colonies.

4)"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5)Jesus did not come to destroy the OT laws. The OT laws are no better than Islamic laws. How many Christians swear by them now?

Let us go through this again.

You say indeed mandated (= and authoritative command or order) by their religion to lie. Even what you have quoted from Gazzali does not sound like a mandate but only talks about permissibility (something that is allowed).

And if you have read some of my posts to Susan I am a confessed masochist (I must be, to take some of the 'thrashings' you have been meting out to me). So let me explain in detail what I intended in stating 1 to 5.

1)When Jesus told Christians to show the other cheek it sounds more like a mandate than what Gazzali has stated. But how many Christians do you think would follow this mandate?

it is a bit like assuming that a Christian will show his other cheek when he is struck on one.

"First, what does that have to do with the topic? Nothing. Second, that line refers to Christians inheriting the earth after the end times. It does not apply to your argument. Third, it has no bearing on the fact that Muslims do indeed obey their mandate to lie to infidels. In other words, you're wasting your breath as usual, Plato."

2) & 3)The mystical meaning of the 'meek inheriting the earth' I admit I was not aware. I took it more in its literal sense, so Christian nations who went about conquering other people did not follow this mandate of the Bible. Does it now sound topical? What I am trying to show is that people of all faiths pick and choose what they want to follow of their religion. The Christians did not believe that the meek shall inherit the earth. So even if it is mandated (show me in the Koran or Hadith where it is MANDATED, not just permitted) no parent will tell his children to go out and lie to infidels.

4) &5) I am not a Bible scholar but from what little I know of it I am not aware of any place where Jesus says he has come to supercede the OT instead he is clearly stating that he has not come to destroy the OT laws. It seems to be your claim just as it is your unilateral claim that Muslims are MANDATED to lie to infidels. In fact, unless there is some mystical meaning, when Jesus says he has not come to destroy the law, in my book at least, it would also mean he has not come to supercede it, as if you supercede a law it would mean also its destruction. It can no longer be in the books. The law is ipso facto dead. Have I wasted my breath?

"Jesus did not come to destroy the OT laws."

Nor has anyone claimed that. Plato, you have a bizarre tendency to respond to arguments that no one has made."

No one except Jesus according to you! How bizarre!

"The OT laws are no better than Islamic laws. How many Christians swear by them now?"

You are making my argument for me, you do realize that, right? The fact is that no Christians live according to OT Biblical law, yet Muslims mainly endorse the violent verses of their Koran. As I said, you just agreed with me."

Noah, go back to any post of mine and show me anywhere I have disagreed with you that Islam as a religion is a violent, aggressive and cause of misery wherever it is found. You are crowing for no reason. My disagreement is only on the basis that because Islam is all you claim to be, practically all Muslims are also violent, aggressive and bent on jihad.

"Your eyes and ears seem to have deceived you........etc............And as usual, you would think wrongly, because lying is indeed mandated by their religion. Once again, the polar opposite of Christianity. They also have a historical track record of lying, breaking treaties, etc."

All you say above is premised on your statement that Muslims are MANDATED to lie. You are welcome your BELIEF.

"You make a lot of concessions, but still you refuse to admit the truth. We know how Muslims think, we know how they define things. It's not rocket science to figure out how they interpret the question.

No need to "read minds" when we can simply look at how they define things and how they think, then extropolate. Again, this does not take a genius IQ to figure out."

Okay I have made a lot of concessions. But what about you with a whole lot of assumptions about knowing how Muslims think, how they define things and claiming they are MANDATED to lie to infidels? University dons, sociologists and psyschologists with plenty of IQ and good science have been at it for some time and I have yet to come across any agreement on how exactly all Muslims think and define things. But you seem to have bettered all of them and reached a very definitive conclusion. Congratulations.

"Your understanding of maya is inaccurate, as was your understanding of karma. It is no illusion that Muslims constitute the vast majority of terrorists on the planet, the vast majority of terrorist actions and terrorist groups, etc. Again, verifiable fact."

I hate to break it to you, Plato, but an example of maya would be believing that most Muslims are peace-loving, that most denounce violence, and that Islam is not an evil ideology. It is indeed a disservice to mankind to lie and to proclaim that most Muslims are peaceful. That's like saying "Most Nazis were peace loving, it was just a couple of misguided anti-Semites among them who hijacked Nazism and caused all that killing".

The Upanishads on maya (positive) or sometimes avidya ( its negative aspect):

As the Isha Upanishad (15) tells us: The veil that covers the truth is golden. It so dazzles and is so gaudy that it takes the mind of the observer away from the inner contents. (the dazzle of 9/11, suicide bombings etc. Well of course I am sort of extrapolating. The truth referred to here is the ineffable Self, Brhaman)

The Katha Upanishad (II, 5):

Self-wise, puffed up with learning, some

Turn round and round (imprisoned) in unwisdom's realm (avidya);

Hither and thither rushing, round they go, the fools,

Like blind men guided by the blind!

This is what I wrote: "Since you are a Vedantist let us bring in the concept of 'maya', illusion. 90% of terrorism world wide is Muslim inspired so jumping to the conclusion all Muslims are terrorists certainly has the hallmark of maya to me. The reality of Islamic terrorism gives you the illusion that all Muslims are terrorists."

Now the most often quoted example of maya is that of a rope viewed in darkness creating the illusion that it is a snake. When light falls on it the illusion disappears and the true nature of the rope presents itself to the viewer.

You are seeing 90% of all terrorism being the handiwork of Muslims. You do not see the Muslims, the very large majority, hidden from you who are not terrorists. They are barely visible because they do not speak, demonstrate or go on bombing missions. You need the right kind of torch to see them as the harmless ropes they are instead of the snakes you think them to be in the dim light of polls, demonstrations and some personal experiences with reptiles.

"I "do a nice hatchet job" on all lies, illusions, and propaganda. And no, that poll did nothing to "debunk" my beliefs, because I only believe in verifiable truth."

Your 'verifiable truth' comes from polls you believe in and the dazzle of the jihadis. Re: Isha and Katha Upanishads.

"Again, I call the polls accurate when they are accurate, and absurd when they are obviously absurd. Polls that contradict verifiable, observable reality are just garbage. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the polls showing "just" 50% or 70% of Muslims as violent are inaccurate since the number is undoubtedly much higher."

Mohammed says he is the last apostle of Allah. What is the proof. It says so in the Koran! What is the proof that Muslims are even more violent than the polls show? I, Noah, have repeatedly stated so.

"One need not be Nostradamus to predict the future. The art of predicting the future is simple. You look at the facts, you look at situations, you consider past events of similar types, and you extropolate the most likely outcome."

Except possibly for the exact sciences not even the dismal science, economics, is able to extrapolate the most likely outcome despite huge data bases available for the past and present. And you find it simple to predict human behaviour. You should be able to put psychologists, sociologists and assorted other ologists out of business.

"Looking at all the factors, only a fool would stake his future and the future of his country and his descendants on a supposition that has no historical precedence to it and that flies in the face of both common sense and analytical outcome by pretending Islam is not a threat."

That Islam is a threat is a given. How to deal with it is what the debate is about. They way you wish to deal with it you will end up becoming what you want destroyed.

"....You conveniently skip over the whole issue of deporting and isolating Islam in order to force it and give it time to reform itself. The destruction aspect only occurs in two situations...

1. We do nothing (yours and Michel's solution)2. Islam commits another mass terror atrocity against us

Both are avoided by deporting and isolating. That is standard procedure when attempting to control any virulent disease, and Islam is precisely that."

When tongue-in-cheek I suggested a solution (the virus) you shot it down as far-fetched, though it turns out it is not so far-fetched after all. The other suggestions had you spurting iced tea from all your orifices. As to Islam committing another mass terror attack (even by a home-grown Islamic unit) resulting in MOABing and neutron bombing of the world of Islam it will be a war crime to end all war crimes. The Nazis perfected that. 'Sanitize' a whole city block or village for an attack by a few individuals. And all power to you for executing your standard procedure of deporting and isolating 2 million (or is it 1.2 billion)?

"...The important thing is to make sure that the side of good wins each time."

We will never know if the good side wins because the victor always gets to write the history. All the ghazwas of the Prophet were for righteous reasons we are told!

"Then use math to prove me wrong, don't just claim I'm wrong and then cower from proving that. Show me how, if there are 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, and only 30 show up for a peace rally, that constitutes a majority of Muslims. Not in this universe will your math prove that."

The Arizona rally is getting to be a cause celebre with you. Because of that rally 1,200,000,000 minus 30 = 1,199,999,970 are the number of terrorist Muslims in the world. Your math prove that?

"You avoid confronting those numbers, as does Michel, for the very same reason Michel avoids doing so - because you cannot refute them! It's simply math, Plato. Grab your calculator. If there are 2,000,000 Muslims in America and only 300 show up for a peace rally to reform Islam, what percentage of American Muslims are in attendance? ...?

My calculator tells me 1,999,700 were not at the rally. It does not tell me anything further. Perhaps your your special calculator tells you there are 1,999,700 terrorists just waiting to set off suitcase n-bombs?

"We see tens of thousands of Muslims worldwide celebrating and dancing in the streets when the Sept. 11th atrocities were committed....."

Did you see the millions that did not celebrate? You saw only the snake not the rope. We need a light here.

"Time to start facing reality, Plato."

I see the rope you the snake.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address: (optional)

Title of Comments:

Comments:

Mark my comment as a response to To Noah: the 'avidya' of the snake and the rope by Plato

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".